home

Chris Dodd Steps Back, Now Says Race Should Continue

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:16:00 PM EST
Tags: Chris Dodd (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Chris Dodd backtracks big time. Today he says,

In an interview with CNN's John Roberts, Dodd — a supporter of Barack Obama — said he thinks the race will end when "the candidates decide they can't go any further.

"The last thing you want to do is lecture candidates to get out of the race," Dodd also said.

Last week he said,

"Over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion," he added.

< NJ Gov. Corzine: Popular Vote Will Determine His SD Vote | Obama Supporters Back Pelosi's Divisiveness >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Chris Dodd Steps Back, Now Says Race Should Continue | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Looks like... (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:14:58 PM EST
    they are finally getting a clue that the Democratic base wants the elections to continue.

    Good for them.

    I feel like its all just appeasement. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
    Unfortunately for them they won't be able to put a lid on NBC and its offspring MSNBC. Will they stop or will the Obama campaign just continue to use them to play bad cop to their new "good cop" posture.

    Parent
    Of course it's appeasement... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    but if enough of them say it, it becomes true.

    That's how the spin wars are won.

    Looks like HRC is winning this one. ;-)

    Parent

    Actually, it was more like (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    Dodd finally realized he ticked off a large portion of the Dem base.

    Sophisticated? Sophisticated would have been not to tick off that large portion in the first place.

    There's a balance in hard ball, and he crossed it.

    Parent

    I wonder if any of his major donors had a little (none / 0) (#78)
    by derridog on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:22:51 PM EST
    talk with him.

    Parent
    Nice try. (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:43:34 PM EST
    The Obama operation is not that good. They genuinely think they can ignore the will of the voters, or they wouldn't be fighting so hard to keep MI and FL out of the delegate and PV count.

    They are being taught a valuable lesson.

    Parent

    While the original meme (none / 0) (#18)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    likely made Clinton's core support more entrenched, I can see how the original message would arguably depress Clinton's soft support. It sure didn't work in NH though.  Time will tell.

    Parent
    It is all so (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:22:41 PM EST
    condescending.  Obama's comment about her stating she can continue as 'her name is on the ballot' is still with me.  The media spins this as 'Obama erred because Clinton benefits when she's the victim.'  

    The media is exactly right of course (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:37:08 PM EST
    The main problem here is that Clinton is not a viable vice presidental pick, while it's just the opposite for Obama. If their positions were reversed in the primary the Clinton/Obama ticket would have already been a done deal. So Clinton won't quit, Obama can't look like he's pushing Clinton out of the race, and the whole thing drags on indefinitely.

    I still can't believe we picked this year, the 2008 presidential election, to run a woman against a black man for the democratic nomination. It's really very unfortunate.

    Parent

    Since Obama announced later (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by SantaMonicaJoe on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    picked a black man to run against a woman.

    Parent
    Well, he probably expected Hillary (none / 0) (#32)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    to see that he wanted to go, and she would bow out. ;-P

    Did Obama have any siblings? This behavior just reeks of only-child-ism.

    Hillary has two younger brothers, so she should be used to handling rambunctious youngsters.

    Parent

    Many siblings. I read his father had six (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:13:40 PM EST
    children, although I don't know how many Barack Obama ever met.  He does have a half-sister, who has been interviewed frequently.

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#38)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:15:39 PM EST
    I may have several siblings I've never met, either... well, no. Dad was definitely not the swinger type! :-P

    Parent
    Article mentioned paternity tests. (none / 0) (#47)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:31:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama had the right to run (none / 0) (#42)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    Same as Clinton did. Just the same as Clinton still has the right to run now, even though she's far behind. It's not Obama's fault Clinton blew all her early advantages.

    Parent
    Yeah! why was Obama in such (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    rush.  Its not like he was getting too old and had so much experience it was now or never.  No, it was a typical opportunist.

    Parent
    This was supposed to be glorious (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by dianem on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:56:47 PM EST
    We were the party of diversity - the party in which all gender's and races could be seriously considered as candidates for President. Then somebody started making sexist comments about Clinton and somebody started accusing various Democrats of being racists and it all turned from a demonstration of equality into a pie fight.

    There are two things I can't forgive Obama for. 1) Not reprimanding his campaign manager for suggesting that Clinton was faking emotions to get votes and 2) Not standing up against the early charges of racism, which were spurious at best. He could have nipped all of this in the bud, but he saved his great speech on race for when he needed it to bail out his campaign. If he had given that speech several months ago, and said things a bit differently, he could have prevented the party from being divided. He didn't do it, because the charges of racism were good for his campaign. He started getting more contributions as well as votes from overwhelming numbers of young people and African Americans (who had previously been split between him and Clinton).

    It's too late now. We are divided between people who are angry at the way Clinton was treated and people who are angry at the way Obama was treated. I suspect that both have somthing to be angry about, but the loser's will remain bitter for a long time, while the winner's will forget both their offenses and their anger and move onto the next issue. And, given the numbers of people voting for Clinton, there will be a lot of loser's. Some of us will get over our anger and continue to support the party. Some wont. Obama is winning a phyrric victory. The real winners here are the Republican's.

    Parent

    Hey liked that egg on his face!! (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:26:26 PM EST
    "The last thing you want to do is lecture candidates to get out of the race," Dodd also said.

    What stung him that he reversed his stand.. what an idiot he looks now.. he lost all respect I had for him!!

    Can we have the picture of Richardson with an egg? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    After so much fuss that Clinton had said Obama cannot win in Nov, it turns out Bill Richardson had also been making statements privately that Obama cannot win in Nov.

    Parent
    I hope this ends (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    talk of Richardson as Obama VP!

    Parent
    Obama's performance (none / 0) (#68)
    by stillife on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    since endorsing Obama is every bit as clumsy as his performance in the debates.  

    Parent
    amateurish debator and communicator (none / 0) (#79)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:12:27 AM EST
    Exactly.  I can't for the life of me figure out why he is high on some people's lists to be Secretary of State of all things or VP...

      His doing all the cable news channels to smilingly tell them how "heated" his phone conversation with Clinton was when he notified her he'd be endorsing Obama was just weasel-like to me.

      And now he's apparently told people that she privately told him Obama can't win.  Obama's new hatchet man, I guess.  

      (I did think the Clinton camp over-reacted to his choice-making though, and gave his endorsement more strength than it had at that point, and not doing themselves any favors that way.)

    Parent

    I think is quite finished in his career as a (none / 0) (#69)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    distinguished politician...

    Parent
    This entire primary (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Nadai on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:26:59 PM EST
    is turning into a not-funny episode of the Three Stooges.

    Parent
    Wonder what Leahy thinks of that (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    comment, lol!~

    Parent
    No !! He cares more for the 30 silver pieces !! (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TalkRight on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST


    Parent
    I wrote to him years ago (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by hairspray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    pleading with him not to confirm John Ashcroft, only to get a letter in response, that every president is entitled to his selections unless they are completely unacceptable.  I never did find out what unacceptable was.

    Parent
    Dodd (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by piezo on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:44:47 PM EST
    Gee and I thought he liked them scrambled. :-)

    Is Dodd kidding? (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM EST
    Isn't that what he and Leahy and others have been doing?

    If the tactic of nagging her to get out had been working, the Obama campaign would not now be reversing course.  Sure, she responded to the constant harangue, but she did it in a way that actually worked for her; wanting people to vote is a message that works no matter what her opponent is saying.  And it works for the Florida-Michigan debacle, and it works for the remaining 10 contests.

    I see the Obama campaign as looking increasingly like Amateur Hour, pressing a message that doesn't work, sending Obama out in venues that do not work for him: bowling, and feeding a calf, and flirting with or getting snippy with voters has shown a lot of people that he does not look nearly as inspiring and god-like when not looking out at throngs of adoring fans, and sad to say, I think when he is forced into situations where he is just Average Joe, he loses people.  John Kerry wind-surfing, Mike Dukakis in the tank...Obama bowling.

    I used to respect Dodd, but this backtracking, as if no one in the Obama camp has been doing their damndest to get Hillary out, is just insulting - which seems to be a common thread in much of what the Obama camp pushes.

    Not only is Hillary on message, she has the right message: let the people vote - ALL of the people.

    Brava, Anne. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    Very well said.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    Judging by the polls, Obama bowling seems to be working out just fine for him.

    Parent
    and will probably continue to work fine (none / 0) (#63)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:11:26 PM EST
    as the media continues airing the Hillary-Bosnia video while concealing the videos of Obama speecheS where he falsely asserts his father's connection to the Kennedy family.

    Parent
    Claiming credit for immigration bill (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:05:37 PM EST
    That truly bothers me.  Others, including Dodd himself, were the ones who worked on that bill while Obama got up during a press conference and blatantly claimed credit for it.

    Clinton made an honest mistake about one incident.*  Obama falsely claimed credit, undercutting the point that he has no true experience or qualifications to be president.  Also, it easily sets him up to be exposed that even his so-called accomplishments as a state senator that one year were largely due to falsely taking credit for the work of others as well.

    *She did not lie since she didn't repeat that same mistake in her autobiography, it was not part of her prepared remarks, and obviously a hostile media could easily refute her mistake by showing video footage.

    Parent

    Eh (none / 0) (#77)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:35:19 PM EST
    Obama did work on it, though I'm not saying he was a decisive player. Politicians inflate their records all the time, i.e. Clinton claiming credit for SCHIP or the Family Medical and Leave act. If you're going to denounce one you ought to denounce the other.

    Parent
    I hope my not-so-kind emails influenced his (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by vicsan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    change of heart. :) He emailed me to raise money and tout his support for Mr. Hope (I was a Dodd supporter until he dropped out...then Edwards) and did he get an earful from me. I also unsubscribed to his emails after he called for Hillary to drop out. I unsubscribed AFTER he was sent another earful from me about him calling for her to drop out.

    Doesn't it seem to you (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:43:23 PM EST
    guys that directions come from the top? Almost like as soon as Obama's campaign saw that calling for HRC to drop out was creating a backlash they backed down. And then the surrogates followed in kinds: Dodd, Markos, etc etc etc.

    YES!.Just like how I know (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by vicsan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:57:22 PM EST
    all the uncommitted Super Delegates will line up behind Mr. Hope after June...even if Hillary has the popular vote. Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Pelosi, McCaskill, and their ilk are twisting arms and making threats, as I type.

    The DC elites are on an all out assault against Hillary and they will make darn sure she doesn't win UNLESS something really, really, really damaging comes out about Mr. Hope and they have no other choice but to support Hillary.

    The fix is in.

    Parent

    No they're not. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:20:49 PM EST
    That's the point. FL and MI are not being counted.

    Parent
    What? (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:09:25 PM EST
    1. Bill Clinton is not the end all and be all of the DC elite.  See: Pelosi, Kennedy, Dean, Daschle, Brazille, etc. who are all pushing hard for Obama.

    2. Being black does not make 1 untrue.

    3. Facts or basic rationality are not partisan.


    Parent
    Since when has any of the DC elites (none / 0) (#82)
    by vicsan on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    liked the Clintons? They've been detested since the day he announced he would run for President against poppy Bush. They're from ARKANSAS fercryingoutloud, not DC or the East Coast. He was NEVER an insider and after Monica happened, they REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hated him. Obama is the tool they're using to rid themselves of having to deal with Bill and Hill again. They (DC insiders) all knew Hillary was going to run for President in '08. Low and behold, just LOOK at who just happened to be elected to the senate in 2004! MR. HOPE. Coincidence? Not a chance.

    It was obvious to me when Kennedy and Kerry came out against Hillary after SC and the swiftboating of Bill with the Fairy Tale story. Kennedy and Kerry knew that was a crock story. They and their ILK were just waiting for the chance to get behind Mr. Hope and SC gave them that excuse. It's all CRAP.

    This whole thing was planned years ago when Mr. Hope gave his Dem Convention speech. He's been groomed for this. Just ask Dick Durbin and Emil Jones...they know what's up and so does anyone else who happens to be paying any attention at all. Emil made himself a U.S. Senator. Emil, ("I'm going to make me a U.S. Senator.")...just like Mr. Hope asked him to do and Dick Durbin took it over from there to make him President (Durbin=DC insider). NOTHING and no one, especially a Clinton,  is going to stop the DC elites from getting THEIR guy in the WH. The only way Hillary is the nominee is if something HUGE (Rezko) come out about him before June.

    Yes, the fix is in.

    Parent

    What a turn around (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Saul on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:00:48 PM EST


    Chris Dodd is WELCOME to say that (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    Hillary is welcome to stay in the race!
    He has my permission!

    Jeralyn - LOL - Dodd's pic! (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:26:29 PM EST


    What if Hillary weren't the opponent? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by LCaution on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:48:11 PM EST
    I've been wondering something.  What if everything about the race were the same except that Obama's opponent was Edwards or Richardson or, well, anybody but Hillary?

    Do you think everybody would be yelling for them to get out of the way?

    No, of course not.  But it's not, of course, because Hillary is a woman.  It is because she's Hillary.

    Good for him (none / 0) (#6)
    by Korha on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:29:15 PM EST
    Clearly the push from Obama supporters to get Clinton to leave the race backfired completely.

    Didn't he also close the gap in Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:43:24 PM EST
    and bring it even?

    Parent
    I think we should wait to celebrate (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:47:44 PM EST
    after our candidates actually win something. Otherwise, we might all end up like Dodd. ;-)

    Parent
    yup! ;) n/t (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Then NAFTAgate happened (none / 0) (#24)
    by magster on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST


    Parent
    If Clinton loses (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:46:17 PM EST
    PA, you are correct, it is over. But I think you are counting your chickens before they hatch.  Remember New Hampshire where he went in with a lead the day before?

    Parent
    You apparently haven't watched (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:34:26 PM EST
    earlier election years as closely.  This is par for the course, as any polls out a few months are silly -- nothing is reliable until a campaign really begins in a state.  Heck, I could poll now for 2012, and it would be as meaningless as polling a while ago for Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, et al.

    Parent
    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:47:32 PM EST
    like how he was winning in MA, CA, NH and NJ days before Clinton beat him there?

    Parent
    Okay, to make it more clear -- (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    early polling is entirely on name recognition.  So in this election, early polling always goes for Clinton.  There always is some closing-up in the polls.  This year, once the campaign in a state commences, Obama automatically will be the one gaining name recognition and closing it up.

    Look up coverage of past primary season polls, especially where one candidate is much better-known from the beginning, and you'll see it is the norm.  Many other and far more interesting factors come into it this year.

    Parent

    Yes, there is that factor, per yesterday's (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 05:51:54 PM EST
    diary that, for some folks, apparently to know him is to love him.  But that seems to take personal contact, i.e., a campaign.

    Parent
    A theological campaign (none / 0) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:38:28 PM EST
    "He's running a theological campaign," said the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who ran for president in 1984 and 1988. "At some point, he took off his arms and grew wings."

    Parent
    But his vaunted momentum kept failing (none / 0) (#80)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 06:36:54 AM EST
    Each time, the talk was about Obama's momentum and how he would overtake her, and each time he lost.

      Now that was after 11 wins in a row, though mainly in caucus states.

      In those states it was close, but he couldn't beat her in those, despite all his charm.  His best bet is with caucuses, where too many can't and don't participate.  Problem for him and for us, then, is, that the General Election is based on voting that is like primaries and not caucuses.

    Parent

    I agree if she blows it, she's out (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    I can't say boo about it, either. Either she can win or she can't.

    But I would like to see how much dough Obama is blowing on this race. How much of his supporter's money, that is.

    Bucks for votes, that's the key. Obama has everything going for him: Ardent and extremely dedicated supporters, a strong media, and a huge financial backing.

    I think the key to remember is that he has all of these and is still neck and neck with Hillary, and still trails her in vs. McCain contests. How easy would it be to tear down his house by reversing just one of those things that is going for him?

    How much would it help Hillary to reverse just one of those things?

    All in all, a very exciting primary season.

    Parent

    Ahem! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Suma on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:08:14 PM EST


    Parent
    There you go again, Suma! (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    Don't get too liberal with that Ahem! :-P

    I noticed you made this point in an earlier post - that despite all the badness getting dumped on Hillary, this is still a close race. Reverse it and Obama would have been out in January.

    Parent

    Well yes, but (none / 0) (#61)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:01:17 PM EST
    that's one of the impressive things about Obama, that he has been able to raise so much money. If he wins the nomination, hopefully that will continue in the general campaign. And as for him having all these advantages and still running only neck and neck, well he's running against a formidable opponent and a stalwart of the Democratic party. Of course it's close; it's astonishing he's in the lead.

    Parent
    Is the poll from Zogby? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:54:25 PM EST
    Races often get closer and she is up by 12% in SUSA, a reliable source this primary season.

    Parent
    You mean Zogby (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 01:58:12 PM EST
    who predicted she'd lose by 20% in NH?

    LOL

    SUSA has been very good, but I'm not counting on anything until the people vote.

    Parent

    And the same Zogby whose poll said Hillary (none / 0) (#40)
    by vicsan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:20:53 PM EST
    was going to lose California by 25%? His polls are meaningless since his brother, James, is a Mr. Hope Super Delegate. He has lost all credibility.

    Parent
    Jeez... (none / 0) (#54)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    I didn't know that. The things you learn on the Intertubes!

    Parent
    Yep. The intertubes (none / 0) (#56)
    by vicsan on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 03:48:48 PM EST
    is the only reason we know those kinds of things. I learned about James Zogby online at another site I use to live at..... until they went bezerk over Barack. Go figure, eh? If I want news, I go to the Internets.

    Parent
    Whoa (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:13:56 PM EST
    Alleged media bias?  Seriously?

    SUSA, more accurate, tells a different story in PA.  And Clinton has won the big states--unlike Obama (exception: MO, which was by a hair).  According to your logic, Obama is a much worse GE candidate due to has lost the GE due to his bad track record in critical GE states, with white working class voters, and Latinos.  Since he campaigned heavily one has to ask (just as you did): Why is that?

    Parent

    Edit (none / 0) (#74)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    I meant to write:

    According to your logic, Obama is a much worse GE candidate due his bad track record in critical GE states, with white working class voters,...

    Parent

    Not correct (none / 0) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 02:25:53 PM EST
    SUSA released a PA poll on April 1 that has CLinton up 12% and they are more reliable than the others, especially PPP and IA.

    C53
    O41

    Parent

    didn't you answer your own question? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    >>>So, for the umpteenth time despite the alleged media bias, she arrives in a state with an enormous lead. Then, once the people of the state get to actually see and hear her, the lead evaporates. Why do you think that happens?

    Parent
    I like your imaging (none / 0) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 11:13:32 AM EST
    I like Chris Dodd too.  A little egg, what's a little egg?  I'll take a little egg over flying the coop.  Dodd has been sensible numerous times over many issues in the past and now he is again.  It's nice ;)

    Chris Dodd Steps Back, Now Says Race Should Continue | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment